The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3381  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
when you say "government" I had assumed you meant people in the Govt, ie the cabinet and other members. But if you mean Civil servants that's a whole other bag.
And from what I've seen a lot of aristocrats who have titles don't like the idea of the title goin in the female line.
However from a political point of view, now, the peerage have lost their postion completely in terms of legislating.. so from a political point of view I cant see why the Govt would have an opinion.
Not entirely. There are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, including two ex-officio seats and 90 seats to which only dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, or hereditary barons can be elected. So hereditary peerage is still attached to political privileges in the UK.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3382  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,661
yes I kow but the idea is to remove the hereditary peers' power and it has largely gone.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3383  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:53 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Not entirely. There are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, including two ex-officio seats and 90 seats to which only dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, or hereditary barons can be elected. So hereditary peerage is still attached to political privileges in the UK.
I'd add, out of 700-800 total seats, aren't there a fair number of hereditary peers who do not participate? With only about 400 actually places to sit in the chamber?

It seems to way a to dilute political power of the HOL.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #3384  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
when you say "government" I had assumed you meant people in the Govt, ie the cabinet and other members. But if you mean Civil servants that's a whole other bag.
And from what I've seen a lot of aristocrats who have titles don't like the idea of the title goin in the female line.
However from a political point of view, now, the peerage have lost their postion completely in terms of legislating.. so from a political point of view I cant see why the Govt would have an opinion.
I'm sorry, I should have said Parliament not government. In the United States we when we say government we mean all three branches including Congress (equivalent to your Parliament) but in the UK that's not the case. My mistake.

Opponents of male primogeniture want Parliament to pass legislation abolishing it, so in that sense it is a political issue, just as other social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) become political when legislatures debate their regulation.

But as you point out a lot of aristocrats don't support this movement. Between that and the fact that many MPs don't care about the peerage in the first place it's a lost cause.
Reply With Quote
  #3385  
Old 02-27-2018, 06:44 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,507
After their four day state visit to Portugal, Queen Elizabeth II issued a proclamation that granted Philip the title and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. What is a titular dignity?
Reply With Quote
  #3386  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,952
It is the fancy way of saying 'title'.
Reply With Quote
  #3387  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,924
Interesting video. Prince Andrew having been raised to the peerage in 1986, was formally introduced to the House of Lords in 1987. His escorts were the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords so this was the last time we witnessed this ancient tradition.

Reply With Quote
  #3388  
Old 03-18-2018, 10:01 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,507
Princess Mary married Henry Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles on February 28, 1922. Her title and style became Her Royal Highness The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles. Would Princess Mary have ever been addressed as a Viscountess in speech as "My Lady"?
Reply With Quote
  #3389  
Old 03-18-2018, 10:57 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Interesting video. Prince Andrew having been raised to the peerage in 1986, was formally introduced to the House of Lords in 1987. His escorts were the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords so this was the last time we witnessed this ancient tradition.
Why do members of the royal family no longer hold seats in the House of Lords? When did that change and why? Anyone?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3390  
Old 03-18-2018, 11:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,924


It was in 1999 when Tony Blair ‘reformed’ the House of Lords. Kicking out hereditary peers.

BBC News | UK Politics | Royals lose voting rights
Reply With Quote
  #3391  
Old 03-18-2018, 11:10 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It was in 1999 when Tony Blair ‘reformed’ the House of Lords. Kicking out hereditary peers.
BBC News | UK Politics | Royals lose voting rights
Was this considered a 'good thing'? Was everyone happy? Clearly the Queen was required to 'go along'. Given I was not tracking on royalty (much) in the late 1990's, I am still aware of some stuff, like the decommissioning of the royal yacht. This Tony Blair was really out to clip the wings of the BRF, not so? What was that about? What was the reasoning? And have his actions in retrospect been generally looked upon as good, or bad? Wondering.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3392  
Old 03-18-2018, 11:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,952
The idea was and still is to make the House of Lords more representative. That is why Life Peers get a seat for their 'lifetime' but hereditary peers now have to be elected from amongst their own except for those who have to have seats e.g. the Earl Marshal.

The intention is to eventually make the House of Lords fully elected - like the US and Australian Senates rather than a house for the privileged few. They have been steadily eating away at the power of the House of Lords since 1649 e.g. in 1660 by convention the Chancellor of the Exchequor, who controls the money sits in the Commons but the monarch is not allowed into the Commons at all (and that carries across into the other realms where she can't go into the Lower Houses - except Qld which doesn't have an upper house having abolished it some time ago.)
Reply With Quote
  #3393  
Old 03-18-2018, 11:37 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,422
Thank you, Iluvbertie.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3394  
Old 03-25-2018, 07:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Posts: 376
Titles, subsidiary titles for Cambridge kids

Just curious: Why isn't Prince George known as "Prince George, Earl of Strathearn?" Is there a reason he doesn't use one of Wiliam's subsidiary titles until he gets a dukedom of his own?
Reply With Quote
  #3395  
Old 03-25-2018, 08:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,952
He is a Prince and that takes precedence.

They use the subsidiary title when they don't have one of their own.

Going back a few generations:

Prince Henry was created Duke of Gloucester and his heir was known as Prince William of Gloucester and his younger brother as Prince Richard of Gloucester. When Prince Richard succeeded to the title and had a son his son - who isn't a Prince - uses the secondary title as a courtesy title and so is known as the Earl of Ulster.

Same with the Duke of Kent - present Duke was known as Prince Edward of Kent until he inherited the title as a male-line grandson of the monarch but his son, who isn't a Prince, is known as the Earl of St Andrews.

When Charles was born he was HRH Prince Charles not the Earl of Merioneth. Had George VI not issued the special LPs to give Charles the status of Prince from birth (being the child of a daughter he wasn't entitled to that as an automatic title) he would have used Earl of Merioneth and been known as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.

William didn't use any of Charles' secondary titles while waiting for his Dukedom. Of course Charles does use them all at times anyway.

HRH Prince trumps Earl of yyyy so George uses HRH Prince George while James uses Viscount Severn because James isn't a Prince.
Reply With Quote
  #3396  
Old 03-25-2018, 08:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 721
George can only use Earl of Strathearn as a courtesy title. As Iluvertie points out he already has the title of Prince.

In William's case it isn't a courtesy title. He is legally a peer of the realm as Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus.

Because the son of a non-royal duke doesn't already have the title of Prince, he uses his father's subsidiary title instead.

When HH Prince Alastair of Connaught was deprived of his title of Prince by George V's Letter Patent he took the courtesy title of Earl of Macduff instead. He was able to do that because his mother was the Duchess of Fife with Countess of Macduff as her subsidiary title.
Reply With Quote
  #3397  
Old 03-26-2018, 12:09 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 901
My understanding is that George does not use the Earl of Strathearn title because he is a Prince in his own right which trumps using one of his father's lesser titles as a courtesy. If George was raised to the peerage as an Earl, he would still be a Prince but in that scenario his Earl title will trump his Prince title, and he would be known as The Earl of X.
Reply With Quote
  #3398  
Old 03-27-2018, 05:37 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 4,507
The wife of Prince Michael of Kent is Princess Michael of Kent. Why can she not be referred to as Princess Marie Christine of Kent?
Reply With Quote
  #3399  
Old 03-27-2018, 05:45 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,403
Because she is not a princess in her own right. It's exactly the same reason why Catherine cannot be called 'princess Catherine' as she is 'princess William' (next to being the duchess of Cambridge). The current duchess of Gloucester previously was known as 'the princess Richard of Gloucester'.
Reply With Quote
  #3400  
Old 03-27-2018, 06:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
The wife of Prince Michael of Kent is Princess Michael of Kent. Why can she not be referred to as Princess Marie Christine of Kent?
She wasn't born a Princess of the UK and only gained that styling by marriage.

It is no different to Kate being Duchess of Cambridge as the wife of the Duke of Cambridge - she takes on the titles and styles of her husband but has none in her own right. Kate is a Princess of the UK as well - but if she used the style of Princess it would be Princess William not Princess Kate.

Diana was popularly called Princess Diana but that was never her correct style or title. She was HRH The Princess of Wales, Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall etc etc but not Princess Diana. If she was Princess anything it was Princess Charles. She would even correct media types who would call her that (not the general public mind you but those she believed she 'know better').

The UK is old-fashioned in that regard.

Even Philip's mother - who was born a Princess in her own right - was referred to officially as Princess Andrew of Greece in the UK. The Queen did allow Marina (also born a Princess in her own right) to use Princess Marina after the death of her husband and the marriage of her son - she was referred to as The Duchess of Kent from the death of the late Duke to the marriage of the present Duke. When the late Duke of Gloucester died the Queen then allowed Alice to use Princess Alice even though she had never been a Princess in her own right but she, like Marina before her, didn't want to use 'Dowager Duchess' as their styles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 864 10-18-2018 01:43 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 02:39 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
"chinese gordon" belgian biography bracelets british royal family britishroyals camilla canada ceremony china clothes commonwealth games corruption current events current events thread daughter daughters duchessofcambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex england extramarital affairs fashion genetics helena history hohenzollern infanta cristina interests juan carlos kate middleton ladies-in-waiting lady louise mountbatten-windsor meghan markle norwegian royal family patronages porphyria prince charles prince charles; biographies; tom bower prince harry prince harry of wales prince laurent prince peter princess alexia princess claire princess royal prince william public opinion queen elizabeth queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal ladies royal wedding rumania siblings smith soldier state visit sweden swedish royal registry the crown tiara van belgië wedding windsor windsor castle



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises